Korg Poly800/EX800 Users

> I showed them your email, but I'm sorry to tell you that we cannot 
> comply with your request. It is our general policy not to release this 
> kind of information - How we design, code and develop our products is 
> part of our long-attained equity as a company and we simply do not in 
> any circumstances release that information out into the public.
============================

Mr Kovarsky, you've probably never heard of me. I've published some 
hardware modifications to the Poly-800 series of synthesizers that seems 
to have contributed quite a bit to it's cult following.

Since both the software and hardware of the Poly-800 series of synths are 
entirely obsolete, it would seem that Korg would have absolutely nothing 
to lose from releasing details about the software. Further, it would 
demonstrate that Korg is a company that puts long-time loyal users ahead 
of obsolete secrets.

We all know that software details of the Poly-800 would reveal no useful 
information at all about any current gear made by Korg. Nor would this 
information be useful to anyone wanting to make a new synthesizer; partly 
because the feature set is limited by modern standards and partly because 
the hardware is obsolete.

I would certainly understand Korg not wanting to release software details 
about these synths in the 80s, or even 90s, but this is 2006. The software 
details of the Poly-800, known to be limited by features and then-current 
hardware, are absolutely useless except for one thing: breathing new life 
into an old hardware synth with a loyal following.

I'm hopeful that a mutually beneficial arrangement can reached with Mr 
Hawkins: Perhaps you can release the code to him with a non-disclosure 
agreement? This would allow him to independently breath new life into this 
old synthesizer (and share his compiled code), without publicly releasing 
any company "secrets".

If Korg were to publicly release such information at this point in time, 
it would only demonstrate that Korg is willing to allow (or even 
encourage) independent support for long obsolete gear. Nothing could be 
more helpful in selling new gear than confidence that the gear will be 
supported long after it's been forgotten. The good PR that Korg could gain 
by releasing the obsolete code for an obsolete synth with a loyal 
following is priceless. I will certainly consider this in future 
purchases; not all synthesizer/effect manufacturers consider such 
information to be a secret after 20+ years.

While I certainly understand that these details are the property of Korg, 
and that Korg had invested resources into it's development, I just can't 
see any justifiable reason to keep the code locked up at this point. Nor 
can I see how it might benefit Korg in any way to keep the code secret. I 
can certainly understand that the code was, at one time, a very valuable 
asset to Korg and worthy of being locked up. While locked in a safe that 
asset certainly must have depreciated to zero within the last several 
years, if not earlier. Thus, it's "equity" to the company is currently 
much greater if it's released than it is if it's kept secret. If there's 
anything that I've overlooked in my reasoning or I don't seem to 
understand, please feel free to contact me and let me know what I'm 
missing.

I hope that you can understand my reasoning, and that you may be able to 
advocate this position within the company. Perhaps a request such as this 
should be directed to R&D, or the legal department. If that's the case, 
please send their contact information to me and Mr Hawkins, so we can 
pursue this further.

Thank you for your time.


-- 
         ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
 		-- Charles H. Duell,
 		Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899